You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Total War History
Moderated by Pitt

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.6 replies
Total War Heaven » Forums » Total War History » A Third Rome?
Bottom
Topic Subject:A Third Rome?
Thalassocracy
Legionary
posted 08 June 2013 09:17 EDT (US)         
After the demise and fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Ottoman Turks, certain European nations have claimed succession to the original Roman Empire.

Such as Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Kingdom of Russia and even the Papal States.

Among the following claimants,
which one of them is a more 'rightful' successor the Roman Empire of the Late Antiquity?

[This message has been edited by Thalassocracy (edited 06-08-2013 @ 09:18 AM).]

AuthorReplies:
Punic Hebil
Centurion
(id: Punic Hoplite)
posted 08 June 2013 13:36 EDT (US)     1 / 6       
Russia claims it because Ivan III of Russia had married Sophia Paleologue, who was a niece I believe of the last Byzantine Emperor. I've always been told that Russia was considered the proper 3rd Rome, though not that it mattered besides a new title for the place. Especially since it can be considered another center of religion, much like Rome was and is the center for the Roman and then Catholic church, and Byzantium Orthodoxy, transferring to Russia as the defender of Orthodoxy when Byzantium fell.

I am the Carthaginian who became an angel, and surrendered his wings for a life on the sea of battle.

My magic screen is constantly bombarded with nubile young things eager to please these old eyes. This truly is a wonderful period in which to exist! - Terikel the Deflowerer
MusCypricus
Legionary
posted 08 June 2013 14:36 EDT (US)     2 / 6       
Thirst of all, its Tsarsdom of Russia--not kingdom! And back then, during the rain of Grand Prince Ivan the Third it was called "The Principality of Moscow".
Concerning your question, I believe that the Italian city states, (including the Papal State) are the best candidates, as their citizens where more or less ethnic Romans (the descendants of the ancient italic peoples). In my opinion, ethnicity matters most.
Punic Hebil
Centurion
(id: Punic Hoplite)
posted 08 June 2013 17:22 EDT (US)     3 / 6       
But they weren't all Italic anymore. Goths and Vandals and Greeks and Celts and a host of many more all became part of Rome, plus the Muslims came and took over Sicily, meaning trading wouldn't be too hard, and wherever traders go, they'll find some pretty lass to lay in bed with. Besides, Byzantium wasn't Italic, and it is the Second Rome. Personally I wouldn't say anyone is the Third Rome, because the second one died without a proper heir, so to speak.

I am the Carthaginian who became an angel, and surrendered his wings for a life on the sea of battle.

My magic screen is constantly bombarded with nubile young things eager to please these old eyes. This truly is a wonderful period in which to exist! - Terikel the Deflowerer
Alex_the_Bold
Legionary
posted 10 June 2013 11:11 EDT (US)     4 / 6       
Well, this is a very complex matter.

Firstly, regarding the royal dynasties:

HRE: The second Holy Roman Emperor Otto II married Theophano, the niece of the emperor John II Tzimiskes.

Ottomans: The second Ottoman emir called Orhan married the daughter of the emperor John VI Kantakouzenos, Theodora.

Russia: The Grand Prince Ivan III married Zoe/Sophia Palaiologina, the niece of the last Byzantine emperor Constantine XI.

So, the HRE had the earliest claim, but the Ottomans had the strongest one, after the fall of the Byzantine empire.

However, none of these states were true descendants of the Roman Empire. The Roman values and culture were long gone...

Invincibility lies in defence, while the possibility of victory in the attack -Sun Tzu
Akouson me, pataxon de (hit me, but first listen to me)-Themistocles to Euribiadis prior to the battle of Salamis.
Thalassocracy
Legionary
posted 11 June 2013 05:07 EDT (US)     5 / 6       
I hear that Russians did have plans to make a legitimate Third Rome themselves, but the idea went out and died during the Russian Revolution in 1917?

Slave, thou hast slain me. Villain, take my purse.
If ever thou wilt thrive, bury my body...
Edorix
High King of Britain
posted 20 July 2013 17:23 EDT (US)     6 / 6       
... multa quoque et bello passus, dum conderet urbem
inferretque deos Latio; genus unde Latinum
Albanique patres atque altae moenia Romae.


"... and in the doubtful realm, before he won
The Latian realm, and built the destined town:
His banished gods restored to rites divine,
And settled sure succession in his line:
From whence the race of Alban fathers come
And the long glories of majestic Rome."
Concerning your question, I believe that the Italian city states, (including the Papal State) are the best candidates, as their citizens where more or less ethnic Romans (the descendants of the ancient italic peoples). In my opinion, ethnicity matters most.
But they weren't all Italic anymore. Goths and Vandals and Greeks and Celts and a host of many more all became part of Rome, plus the Muslims came and took over Sicily, meaning trading wouldn't be too hard, and wherever traders go, they'll find some pretty lass to lay in bed with. Besides, Byzantium wasn't Italic, and it is the Second Rome. Personally I wouldn't say anyone is the Third Rome, because the second one died without a proper heir, so to speak.
The long-term impact of Roman-era immigration from the provinces to Italy is difficult to quantify in genetic studies. I would also suggest that just because you are "Italic" does not make you as Roman as an actual Roman of Rome, from an ethnic standpoint; this idea is based on much more recent Italian national feeling, and an oversight of the complexity of "Italic" and other ethnic groups in Italy prior to the Romans. Besides Rome was thoroughly cosmopolitan even with people from beyond Italy by the second century BCE. The current people of Italy are not really a great ethnic candidate. And in terms of how Roman different people have felt and feel themselves to be, the picture is much more complex... remember all freeborn people of the Roman Empire were granted Roman citizenship in the third century.

I turn to post-Roman Britain, because I know the scene, for an example: in the West and North of Britain after the Romans officially abandoned Britannia in 410, over the course of the fifth century, occurred arguably the biggest boom of Romanisation since the initial conquest. Apparently the insecurity people felt when Rome left, the fear of not knowing what would or could fill the void, spurred them on to extra efforts of Romanness; there was a renaissance of classical Latin poetry, and a handful of the old public towns, most importantly Uiroconium (Wroxeter), saw a careful re-organisation and renewed support for civic authority. Welsh folk-tales glorify the usurper-Emperor Magnus Maximus as late as the fourteenth century as their own hero, and it was to the monasteries of Northumbria that Charlemagne turned for the best tutor in grammar.

Of course this was not the only situation. In northern France for a time a small kingdom, the final remnant of the Roman province of Gaul, based on Paris, held out against the Franks, calling itself the Kingdom of the Romans. Odoacer claimed a similar title, and sought legitimacy from the other Roman authorities of the time. Of course, none of this was to last. In terms of the continuity of political institutions, aside from the Eastern Roman Empire, the papacy alone could trace a direct line back to the ancient Roman public office of pontifex maximus - and, building on this, authority conferred by the Pope might also be considered legitimate: such as the position of Holy Roman Emperor, established by Charlemagne. Thus Charlemagne's successor-states might also be considered to carry the seal of Roman official authority, and of those only France now survives (despite a few revolutions, re-establishments, rebrandings and the odd occupation). But this is a completely superficial measure... Rome is not a badge given by a glorified preacher, and what is more I am not alone in thinking Rome's own religion is not first and foremost Christianity.
"... this conflict has gone on for three hundred years, and it's still not over."

"What are you saying? It is all over. Our world no longer exists."

"You are wrong. Rome cannot be identified with a race, or a people, or an ethnic group. Rome is an ideal; and ideals cannot be destroyed."
- The Last Legion, by Valerio M Manfredi; a discussion between Ambrosinus and the deposed Emperor Romulus as they flee Italy for the North.

EDORIX
~ ancient briton ~

/\
/|||| ||||\

(dis ma house)

[This message has been edited by Lord Eddie (edited 07-21-2013 @ 02:56 PM).]

You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Total War Heaven | HeavenGames